This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-141R
entitled 'International Food Assistance: U.S. Nonemergency Food Aid
Programs Have Similar Objectives but Some Planning Helps Limit
Overlap' which was released on December 12, 2012.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-13-141R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 12, 2012:
The Honorable Daniel Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ron Johnson:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tom Coburn:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Howard Berman:
United States House of Representatives:
Subject: International Food Assistance: U.S. Nonemergency Food Aid
Programs Have Similar Objectives but Some Planning Helps Limit Overlap:
In fiscal years 2008 through 2011, U.S. agencies obligated about $3
billion toward nonemergency food aid programs.[Footnote 1] The primary
goal of these programs is to increase agricultural capacity and reduce
malnutrition. Nonemergency food aid programs are primarily development
assistance programs that address long-term chronic hunger (food
insecurity). The United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) administer
these programs.[Footnote 2] In 2008, we identified factors that
contribute to food insecurity--such as low agricultural productivity,
limited rural development, government policy disincentives, and poor
health among agricultural workers. We previously reported that efforts
to mitigate these factors have been fragmented and uncoordinated
across the U.S. government.[Footnote 3] In response to your concerns
about fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in USAID and USDA
nonemergency food aid programs, we examined the extent to which these
agencies' nonemergency food aid programs pursue similar
objectives.[Footnote 4]
To identify USAID and USDA objectives for their nonemergency food aid
programs, we analyzed program legislation and agency documents and
interviewed agency officials and implementing partners in Washington,
D.C. To determine how these objectives were operationalized, we
reviewed program funding, geographic focus, country-level activities,
and agency planning processes. To capture annual funding amounts
toward nonemergency food aid programs, we examined data from USAID and
USDA on the amounts they obligated for these programs from fiscal
years 2008 through 2011. We interviewed cognizant officials about
agency definitions for nonemergency food aid obligations, costs
included in the data (i.e., commodity, freight, transport costs), and
if the process for capturing the data has changed during fiscal years
2008 through 2011. We determined that the data we used were
sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To determine whether USAID and
USDA were conducting nonemergency food aid programs in the same
countries, we analyzed the U.S. International Food Assistance Report
2011.[Footnote 5] To illustrate whether USAID and USDA had planned
similar project-level activities in the same countries, we selected
two countries, Guatemala and Uganda, where (1) three nonemergency food
aid programs were active in fiscal year 2011 and (2) recent GAO food
aid audit work had been completed. These project-level activities are
not generalizable for all nonemergency food aid programs. We also
collected information on headquarters and field coordination (i.e., e-
mails, guidance, budgets) in planning nonemergency food aid programs.
Our review did not address internal controls or field-level
implementation of project activities (i.e., program management, costs,
results, and monitoring and evaluation). For a broader discussion on
coordination mechanisms to limit overlap and duplication in food aid
programs, we plan to issue a report on Feed the Future, the government-
wide global food security initiative, in 2013. (See enclosure I for
more details on scope and methodology.)
We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to December 2012 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
USAID and USDA share broad objectives for nonemergency food aid
programs; however, the agencies have established some planning
processes to limit overlap in these programs. For example, both USAID
and USDA have objectives that address financial services,
infrastructure, agricultural productivity, agribusiness development,
and child and maternal nutrition needs in food insecure countries.
Some of these shared objectives are the result of authorizing
legislation, through which Congress outlines nonemergency food aid
objectives, while others are included in presidential initiatives and
agency strategies. We also found that USAID and USDA nonemergency food
aid programs shared common geographic focus areas in which they
implemented similar activities. For example, in fiscal year 2011, both
USAID and USDA had nonemergency food aid programs in Guatemala and
Uganda and both programs were providing agricultural training.
Furthermore, implementing partners in Guatemala and Uganda
administering programs for both agencies told us that USAID and USDA
have parallel administrative structures in the field and distinct
requirements for performance management. However, we found that these
agencies have established some processes to plan and coordinate
country activities in efforts to limit overlap. For example, to
improve coordination in nonemergency food aid programs, USAID and USDA
officials told us that they exchange information on program proposals
during the solicitation phase and seek comments from one another. In
addition, both agencies share country program information that
includes organization, beneficiary, commodities, and total costs for
programs in an effort to better coordinate activities.
Background:
Nonemergency food aid programs generally monetize[Footnote 6] U.S.
agricultural commodities to generate cash for development projects.
[Footnote 7] The commodities are purchased by USDA with funds
appropriated for that purpose.[Footnote 8] While USDA manages the
purchase and delivery of all international food aid commodities, both
USAID and USDA administer nonemergency food aid programs by using U.S.
commodities to implement development programs. The objectives of
currently active nonemergency food aid programs are outlined in these
four program authorities:
* USAID Title II Development Assistance. Authorized by Title II of the
Food for Peace Act,[Footnote 9] these programs include the donation of
commodities to meet emergency and nonemergency needs as well as the
sale of commodities in-country to obtain funds for development
purposes, including food security goals.
* USDA Food for Progress. Authorized by the Food for Progress Act of
1985,[Footnote 10] this program provides for the donation or credit
sale of U.S. commodities to developing countries and emerging
democracies committed to introducing and expanding free enterprise in
the agricultural sector. In most cases, commodities are sold in-
country to support agricultural projects to increase rural incomes and
enhance food security by improving agricultural productivity,
supporting agribusiness development, and expanding availability of
financial services.
* USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education). Authorized by the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002[Footnote 11] to support
education, child development, and food security for some of the
world's poorest children, this program provides for donations of U.S.
agricultural commodities, as well as financial and technical
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition
projects in low-income, food-insecure countries that are committed to
universal education.
* USDA Local and Regional Procurement Pilot. USDA established this
pilot program--also authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008[Footnote 12]--to purchase local and regional food products
to help with emergency and nonemergency food needs in developing
countries during fiscal years 2008 through 2012. One of the program's
objectives is to provide a basis for determining the efficacy and
impact of local and regional procurement of food aid.
As shown in table 1, from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2011,
USAID and USDA obligated about $3 billion toward nonemergency food aid
programs. Total funding during this period grew by 11 percent. USAID
Title II Development Assistance programs represented the largest
funding amount (58 percent), followed by USDA's Food for Progress (22
percent), Food for Education (19 percent), and Local and Regional
Procurement Pilot (1 percent) programs.
Table 1: Total Obligations for Nonemergency Food Aid, Fiscal Years
2008 through 2011:
Nonemergency Food Aid[A]: USAID Title II Development Assistance
Programs;
2008: $476 million;
2009: $422 million;
2010: $422 million;
2011: $414 million;
Total (2008-2011): $1.734 billion;
Percentage: 58%.
Nonemergency Food Aid[A]: USDA Food for Progress;
2008: $137 million;
2009: $204 million;
2010: $151 million;
2011: $164 million;
Total (2008-2011): $655 million;
Percentage: 22%.
Nonemergency Food Aid[A]: USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education);
2008: $96 million;
2009: $85 million;
2010: $178 million;
2011: $207 million;
Total (2008-2011): $566 million;
Percentage: 19%.
Nonemergency Food Aid[A]: USDA Local and Regional Procurement Pilot;
2008: 0;
2009: $5 million;
2010: $11 million;
2011: $4 million;
Total (2008-2011): $20 million;
Percentage: 1%.
Nonemergency Food Aid[A]: Total;
2008: $709 million;
2009: $715 million;
2010: $762 million;
2011: $789 million;
Total (2008-2011): $2.975 billion;
Percentage: 100%.
Source: USAID and USDA budget documents.
Note: Total obligations include U.S. value of the commodity, shipping,
inland transportation, and freight charges. Local and Regional
Procurement Pilot obligations include the cash amount provided to the
implementing partner based on the partner's budget to procure and
transport commodities as well as the estimated program administration
costs.
[A] Nonemergency food aid obligations data may not be comparable to
the funding amounts reported in the annual U.S. International Food
Assistance Report.
[End of table]
USAID and USDA Have Common Objectives, Geographic Focus Areas, and
Activities for Nonemergency Food Aid Programs but Have Established
Some Planning Processes to Limit Overlap:
Agencies' Programs Share Broad Economic, Agricultural, and Health-
Related Objectives:
Based on a legislative review, we found that USAID's and USDA's
nonemergency food aid programs share broad economic, agricultural, and
health-related objectives. Congress through authorizing legislation
outlines nonemergency food aid program objectives (see table 2). For
example, the legislation for both USAID's Title II Development
Assistance programs and USDA's McGovern-Dole (Food for Education)
program stipulate that combating malnutrition among women and children
is a program objective.
Table 2: Nonemergency Food Aid Objectives by Program Authority:
Program and program authority[A]: USAID Food for Peace Act Title II
Development Assistance[B]; Food for Peace Act, Title II;
Objectives in program authority:
Economic:
* Promote economic and community development;
* Promote economic security by increasing educational, training, and
other productive activities;
Agriculture:
* Promote food security and support sound environmental practices;
* Carry out feeding programs;
Health:
* Combat malnutrition, especially in children and mothers;
* Carry out activities that attempt to alleviate the causes of hunger,
mortality, and morbidity;
* Promote nutritional security by increasing educational, training,
and other productive activities.
Program and program authority[A]: USDA Food for Progress Program; Food
for Progress Act of 1985 as amended;
Objectives in program authority:
Economic:
* Economic freedom;
* Establishment of market-determined foreign exchange rates;
Agriculture:
* Private, domestic production of eligible commodities for domestic
consumption;
* Creation and expansion of efficient domestic markets for the
purchase and sale of eligible commodities;
* Access, on the part of farmers in the country, to private,
competitive markets for their product;
* Market pricing of eligible commodities to foster adequate private
sector incentives to farmers;
* Timely availability of production inputs (such as seed, fertilizer,
or pesticides) to farmers;
* Access to technologies appropriate to the level of agricultural
development in the country;
* Construction of facilities and distribution systems necessary to
handle perishable products;
Health:
NA.
Program and program authority[A]: USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for
Education); Sec. 3107 of Pub. L. No. 107-171, the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002, as amended;
Objectives in program authority:
Economic:
* Improve literacy and primary education, particularly for girls[C];
Objectives in program authority:
Agriculture:
* Improve food security;
* Reduce the incidence of hunger;
Health:
* Maternal, infant, and child nutrition programs for pregnant women,
nursing mothers, infants, and children who are five years of age or
younger.
Program and program authority[A]: USDA Local and Regional Procurement
Pilot[B]; Sec. 3206 of Pub. L. No. 110-26: Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill);
Objectives in program authority:
Economic:
* Local and regional purchase of food commodities;
Agriculture:
NA;
Health:
NA.
Legend: NA = not applicable.
Source: GAO analysis of authorizing legislation for the various
programs and agency program documents.
Notes: The types of activities implemented through nonemergency food
aid programs include direct feeding, food for work, agricultural and
market access training, road rehabilitation, health and nutrition
education, school gardens, and infrastructure projects to improve
sanitation facilities.
[A] U.S. nonemergency food assistance programs are authorized by three
major laws: Food for Peace Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 1736o (Food for
Progress), 7 U.S.C. 1736o-1 (McGovern-Dole), and 7 U.S.C. 1726c (Local
and Regional Procurement Pilot).
[B] Program legislation governs both emergency and nonemergency food
aid. In this report, we included nonemergency food aid. USAID also
implements Local and Regional Procurement Pilot projects ($300 million
in fiscal year 2011); however, those projects are exclusively for
emergency needs.
[C] Since one of the primary goals for improving literacy and primary
education attendance is to increase economic opportunities for girls,
we categorized this intervention as an economic objective.
[End of table]
USAID and USDA planning documents also outline common objectives among
the four nonemergency food aid programs. As shown in table 3, USAID
and USDA have both focused on common sectors to achieve programmatic
goals and objectives: financial services, infrastructure, agricultural
productivity, agribusiness development, and child and maternal
nutrition. USAID officials told us that due to the broad objectives
outlined in legislation, they have flexibility in country, sector, and
project selection.
Table 3: USAID and USDA Nonemergency Food Aid Programs, by Sector:
Program: USAID; Title II Development Assistance Programs;
Location: Countries vulnerable to or with existing food insecurity;
Target group: Vulnerable populations;
Agency objectives by sector:
Economic: Financial services: [Check];
Economic: Infrastructure: [Check];
Agriculture: Agricultural productivity: [Check];
Agriculture: Agribusiness development: [Check];
Health: Child and maternal nutrition: [Check].
Program: USDA; Food for Progress Program;
Location: Developing countries and emerging democracies;
Target group: Rural populations;
Agency objectives by sector:
Economic: Financial services: [Check];
Economic: Infrastructure: [Check];
Agriculture: Agricultural productivity: [Check];
Agriculture: Agribusiness development: [Check];
Health: Child and maternal nutrition: [Empty].
Program: USDA; McGovern-Dole (Food for Education)[A];
Location: Low-income, food-deficit countries;
Target group: Children and mothers;
Agency objectives by sector:
Economic: Financial services: [Check];
Economic: Infrastructure: [Check];
Agriculture: Agricultural productivity: [Empty];
Agriculture: Agribusiness development: [Empty];
Health: Child and maternal nutrition: [Check].
Program: USDA; Local and Regional Procurement Pilot;
Location: Developing countries experiencing a disaster or food crisis;
Target group: Not specified;
Agency objectives by sector:
Economic: Financial services: [Empty];
Economic: Infrastructure: [Check];
Agriculture: Agricultural productivity: [Empty];
Agriculture: Agribusiness development: [Empty];
Health: Child and maternal nutrition: [Empty].
Legend: [Check] refers to program that has objectives within the
sector; an empty cell signifies a program without objectives in the
sector.
Source: GAO analysis of USAID and USDA documents.
[A] USDA's McGovern-Dole (Food for Education) program also has
education-related objectives to improve literacy and primary education.
[End of table]
USAID and USDA also align their food aid activities in response to
presidential initiatives and with government-wide objectives to
enhance global food security. For example, in 2009 the U.S.
government's global hunger and food security initiative (Feed the
Future) and its international health program (Global Health
Initiative) raised concerns about malnutrition and stunting in food-
insecure countries. As a result, U.S. agencies have increased their
focus on reducing malnutrition in food aid programs.
Agencies' Programs Share Geographic Focus Areas Where They Implement
Similar Activities:
As shown in table 4, our review of nonemergency food aid programs in
fiscal year 2011 found that USAID and USDA were implementing some
nonemergency food aid programs in the same countries. For example, of
the 34 countries that received nonemergency food aid in fiscal year
2011, 11 countries benefited from both USAID and USDA nonemergency
food aid programs.
Table 4: Countries with Multiple Nonemergency Food Aid Programs,
Fiscal Year 2011:
Country[A]: Democratic Republic of Congo;
USAID Title II Development Assistance: [Check];
USDA Food for Progress: [Empty];
USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education): [Check];
USDA Local Regional Procurement Pilot: [Empty];
Number of programs in fiscal year 2011: 2.
Country[A]: Mozambique;
USAID Title II Development Assistance: [Check];
USDA Food for Progress: [Empty];
USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education): [Empty];
USDA Local Regional Procurement Pilot: [Check];
Number of programs in fiscal year 2011: 2.
Country[A]: Mali;
USAID Title II Development Assistance: [Check];
USDA Food for Progress: [Empty];
USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education): [Check];
USDA Local Regional Procurement Pilot: [Empty];
Number of programs in fiscal year 2011: 2.
Country[A]: Niger;
USAID Title II Development Assistance: [Check];
USDA Food for Progress: [Empty];
USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education): [Empty];
USDA Local Regional Procurement Pilot: [Check];
Number of programs in fiscal year 2011: 2.
Country[A]: Bangladesh;
USAID Title II Development Assistance: [Check];
USDA Food for Progress: [Check];
USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education): [Check];
USDA Local Regional Procurement Pilot: [Empty];
Number of programs in fiscal year 2011: 3.
Country[A]: Burkina Faso;
USAID Title II Development Assistance: [Check];
USDA Food for Progress: [Check];
USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education): [Check];
USDA Local Regional Procurement Pilot: [Empty];
Number of programs in fiscal year 2011: 3.
Country[A]: Guatemala[B];
USAID Title II Development Assistance: [Check];
USDA Food for Progress: [Check];
USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education): [Check];
USDA Local Regional Procurement Pilot: [Empty];
Number of programs in fiscal year 2011: 3.
Country[A]: Haiti;
USAID Title II Development Assistance: [Check];
USDA Food for Progress: [Check];
USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education): [Check];
USDA Local Regional Procurement Pilot: [Empty];
Number of programs in fiscal year 2011: 3.
Country[A]: Malawi;
USAID Title II Development Assistance: [Check];
USDA Food for Progress: [Check];
USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education): [Check];
USDA Local Regional Procurement Pilot: [Empty];
Number of programs in fiscal year 2011: 3.
Country[A]: Liberia;
USAID Title II Development Assistance: [Check];
USDA Food for Progress: [Check];
USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education): [Check];
USDA Local Regional Procurement Pilot: [Empty];
Number of programs in fiscal year 2011: 3.
Country[A]: Uganda[B];
USAID Title II Development Assistance: [Check];
USDA Food for Progress: [Check];
USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education): [Empty];
USDA Local Regional Procurement Pilot: [Check];
Number of programs in fiscal year 2011: 3.
Legend: [Check] signifies that a program was active in the country in
fiscal year 2011; an empty cell signifies a program was not active in
the country in fiscal year 2011.
Source: USAID and USDA International Food Assistance Report 2011.
[A] In addition to the countries listed here, 2 countries benefited
from multiple USDA nonemergency food aid programs and 21 other
countries had one active nonemergency food aid program in fiscal year
2011.
[B] To illustrate whether USAID and USDA had planned similar project-
level activities in the same countries, we selected two countries,
Guatemala and Uganda, where (1) three nonemergency food aid programs
were active in fiscal year 2011 and (2) recent GAO food aid audit work
had been completed.
[End of table]
Both USAID and USDA were implementing nonemergency food aid programs
in Guatemala and Uganda in fiscal year 2011, and we found that these
programs shared common geographic focus areas, activities, and
implementing partners (see enclosure 2 for a more detailed
discussion). In Guatemala and Uganda, we found the following:
* Geographic Focus: Some USAID and USDA nonemergency food aid programs
were delivered in the same geographic areas. For example, in
Guatemala, USAID's Title II Development Assistance Programs and USDA's
McGovern-Dole (Food for Education) were both operating in the same
geographic region, Baja Verapaz. In Uganda, USAID's Title II
Development Assistance programs and USDA's Local and Regional
Procurement Pilot programs were both operating in the same districts,
Kitgum and Pader.
* Similar Activities: Some USAID and USDA nonemergency food aid
programs carried out similar activities; however, in these cases the
activities were either delivered to different participant groups or
different locations, or implementation time lines varied. For example,
in Guatemala, USDA's Food for Education and USAID's Title II
Development Assistance programs both provided sanitary infrastructure
(i.e., constructing latrines) and agricultural training. In Uganda,
USDA's Local and Regional Procurement Pilot and USAID's Title II
Development Assistance programs both included rehabilitation of rural
roads, but USAID's program in Guatemala benefited households, while
USDA's program benefited school children. Additionally, though
agricultural training was a common activity for both USAID and USDA
programs, the project time lines varied, so that, for example, one
program was initiating its activities while the other was in the
closeout phase. In Guatemala, both McGovern-Dole (Food for Education)
and USAID's Title II Development Assistance had capacity-building
efforts such as training to improve agricultural productivity;
however, both programs were not active in the same geographic area. In
some cases, where the geographic focus and project activities were
similar, agency program agreements had stipulations to avoid program
participant overlap. For example, in Uganda, USAID's Title II
Development Assistance programs and USDA's Local and Regional
Procurement Pilot were both rehabilitating feeder roads through food-
for-work programs in the Kitgum and Pader districts. However, to avoid
program participant overlap, the USDA's Local and Regional Procurement
Pilot program agreement included a stipulation that participants in
the program could not be receiving similar support from any other
program.
* Common Partners: Some USAID and USDA nonemergency food aid programs
used common implementing partners to administer the programs. In
Guatemala, out of six nonemergency food aid programs active in 2011,
two programs (one USAID and one USDA) had the same implementing
partner. Similarly in Uganda, out of five nonemergency food aid
programs active in 2011, two programs (one USAID and one USDA) had the
same implementing partner. According to these implementing partners,
Mercy Corps and Share Guatemala, though program goals and objectives
between these two agencies may overlap, the program participants do
not. For example, Mercy Corps officials in Uganda told us that while
the focus of both USAID Title II and USDA Food for Progress programs
were smallholder farmers, the program participants varied because they
lived in different geographic focus areas. Similarly, a Share
Guatemala official told us that while the focus of USDA's McGovern-
Dole (Food for Education) program and USAID's Title II was to improve
chronic malnutrition through food rations, the target populations were
different (i.e., school-age children versus households). Additionally,
these implementing partners, Mercy Corps and Share Guatemala, also
told us that while some program management aspects of USAID and USDA
nonemergency food aid programs may overlap, most are addressed
separately. For example, in some cases implementing partners'
monitoring and evaluation systems and country offices are centralized,
while the staff and resources used to implement the programs are
separate. These implementing partners also noted that USAID and USDA
have different administrative structures in the field and distinct
requirements for performance management. For example, Mercy Corps
officials in Uganda told us that there was no USDA Foreign
Agricultural Service representative in Uganda, and as a result their
interaction was primarily with officials in USDA's Washington
headquarters, while their interaction with USAID was primarily with
field representatives in Uganda.
Agencies Have Established Some Planning Processes to Limit Overlap:
Since 2010, to improve coordination in nonemergency food aid programs,
USAID and USDA have shared program proposals and annual program
information and conducted periodic joint meetings. USAID and USDA
officials both told us that they have shared information on program
proposals during the solicitation phase and have sought comments from
one another. For example, in 2010 USAID field staff raised concerns
about costs, timelines, and potential for duplicative procurement and
activities in a proposal for USDA's Local and Regional Procurement
Pilot in Mozambique. USDA decided to reject the proposal and to move
forward with another program in the country. Additionally, since 2010,
USDA has provided annual program information that included country,
organization, beneficiary, commodities, and total costs for all Food
for Education and Food for Progress programs to USAID Title II
officials in an effort to coordinate activities. USDA officials told
us that the main objectives for sharing such information is to know
about the projects that each agency is funding and to discuss ways to
complement each other's activities to guard against funding
overlapping activities. Similarly, since 2011, USAID has shared
similar information with USDA and sought feedback and review.
Furthermore, according to USDA officials, they conducted country
meetings with USAID officials to discuss country activities relating
to food aid, agriculture development, and education and sought
recommendations or concerns on the initial priority list or
suggestions for changes that should be made.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to USAID and USDA for review and
comment. Neither agency provided formal written comments, but both
agencies provided technical comments that were incorporated, as
appropriate.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. GAO staff who made
major contributions to this report are Phillip Thomas, Assistant
Director; Farahnaaz Khakoo-Mausel, Analyst-in-Charge; David Dayton;
Martin De Alteris; Mark Dowling; Mark Needham, Erin Preston, and Emily
Gupta.
Signed by:
Thomas Melito, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Enclosures - 2:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology:
To identify USAID and USDA objectives for their nonemergency food aid
programs, we analyzed program legislation and categorized similar
objectives by three main areas-economic, agriculture, and health. To
identify if agencies were active in similar sectors, we reviewed USAID
and USDA agency documents and similarly categorized those sectors by
these same three areas. We also interviewed agency officials in
Washington, D.C., and conducted conference calls with implementing
partners in Guatemala and Uganda. To determine how these objectives
were operationalized, we reviewed program funding, geographic focus,
country-level activities, and agency planning processes. Our review
did not address internal controls or field-level implementation of
project activities (i.e., program management, results, and monitoring
and evaluation).
To capture annual funding amounts toward nonemergency food aid
programs, we examined data from USAID and USDA on the amounts they
obligated for these programs for fiscal years 2008 through 2011. We
interviewed cognizant officials about agency definitions for
nonemergency food aid obligations, costs included in the data (i.e.,
commodity, freight, transport costs), and whether the process for
capturing the data had changed during fiscal years 2008 through 2011.
We determined that the data we used were sufficiently reliable for our
purposes.
To determine whether USAID and USDA were conducting nonemergency food
aid programs in the same countries, we reviewed the U.S. International
Food Aid Report 2011. We tracked the number of nonemergency food aid
programs by country for fiscal year 2011. To illustrate whether USAID
and USDA had planned similar project-level activities in the same
countries, we selected two countries, Guatemala and Uganda, where (1)
three nonemergency food aid programs were active in fiscal year 2011
and (2) recent GAO food aid audit work had been completed. These
project-level activities are not generalizable for all nonemergency
food aid programs. For these two countries, we gathered grant and
cooperative contract agreements for all nonemergency food aid programs
active in fiscal year 2011. We collected information on the
implementing partner, implementation timeline, program value,
estimated monetization amount, commodities, goals and objectives,
project activities, and geographic focus areas. To determine if
similar activities existed, we compared project activities across
programs, by country. To determine if there were common program
participant groups and if overlap existed when project activities were
similar across programs, we analyzed the timelines, geographic focus
areas, and agreement stipulations. In addition, we spoke with two
implementing partners (namely, Mercy Corps and Share Guatemala) who
were implementing both USAID and USDA programs.
We also collected headquarters and field coordination exchanges (i.e.,
e-mails, guidance, budgets) in planning nonemergency food aid
programs. For a broader discussion of coordination mechanisms to limit
overlap and duplication in food aid programs, we plan to issue a
report on Feed the Future, the government-wide global food security
initiative, in 2013.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to December 2012 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Enclosure II:
Nonemergency Food Aid Programs Active in Fiscal Year 2011 in Guatemala
and Uganda:
Program: Guatemala - USAID Title II Development Assistance;
Project start-end dates: October 2006-July 2012;
Partner: Catholic Relief Services;
Project value in millions: $26.6;
Project goals and objectives:
1. Improved agricultural productivity and sustainable use of natural
resources;
2. Increased resilience of family livelihood capacities;
3. Improved health and nutritional status of children 0-36 months and
pregnant/lactating women;
4. Improved community capacity to ensure its own food security;
Examples of project activities: food for work, agricultural training
for farmers, education for mothers on child growth, construction of
water systems and latrines, training for local and municipal ministry
of health officials;
Geographic focus: Departments of San Marcos and Baja Verapaz.
Program: Guatemala - USAID Title II Development Assistance;
Project start-end dates: July 2009-June 2015;
Partner: Mercy Corps;
Project value in millions: $47.3;
Project goals and objectives:
1. Improve nutritional status and health of women and children
vulnerable to food insecurity in northern Guatemala;
2. Prevent malnutrition in children under the age of two;
3. Improve service quality and delivery of health care service
providers at community through municipal levels;
food rations for pregnant/lactating women, consultation with
government and civil society leaders;
Examples of project activities: build local community leadership
capacity/ministry of health capacity; establish emergency funds for
transportation to health services;
Geographic focus: Departments of Alta Verapaz and Quiché.
Program: Guatemala - USAID Title II Development Assistance;
Project start-end dates: October 2006-August 2012;
Partner: Save the Children Federation, Inc.;
Project value in millions: $23.8;
Project goals and objectives:
1. Improve maternal and child health and nutrition;
2. Strengthen livelihoods management;
3. Build community resilience;
Examples of project activities: maternal and child health and
nutrition services; training of subsistence farmer groups,
entrepreneurial groups, ministry of agriculture, and women's income
groups; seed distribution, road rehabilitation, reforestation, and
water shed activities;
Geographic focus: Department of Quiché.
Program: Guatemala - USAID Title II Development Assistance;
Project start-end dates: August 2006-June 2012;
Partner: Share de Guatemala;
Project value in millions: $30.9;
Project goals and objectives:
1. Improve nutrition and health of lactating mothers, children under
three, and pregnant women;
2. Improve family food production, incomes, and the management of
resources;
3. Strengthen the capacity of communities to manage their own
development;
4. Improve basic community infrastructure;
Examples of project activities: food for work, sanitary
infrastructure, food rations to families, home gardens, local
development, post harvest storage, micro-credit and savings groups;
build capacity of local nongovernmental organizations; education
activities on child and mother health;
Geographic focus: Departments of Chimaltenango and Huehuetenango.
Program: Guatemala - USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education);
Project start-end dates: September 2011-December 2015;
Partner: Share de Guatemala;
Project value in millions: $25.0;
Project goals and objectives:
1. Improve school enrollment and attendance;
2. Reduce the incidence of school desertion for higher-risk students
through the provision or a take-home ration;
3. Improve the quality of education;
4. Strengthening capacity of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) and
local indigenous organizations;
Examples of project activities: direct feeding, take-home rations,
teacher training, sanitary infrastructure, health and nutrition
education, school gardens, training on commodities for community;
Geographic focus: Departments of ChimaItenango, Huehuetcllango, Baja
Verapaz, and Quiché.
Program: Guatemala - USDA Food for Progress;
Project start-end dates: September 2010-December 2015;
Partner: Universidad Del Valle De Guatemala;
Project value in millions: $4.0;
Project goals and objectives:
1. Develop food products and produce bio-fuel for small, medium, and
large scale farmers;
2. Provide education, training and technical assistance to farmers and
community groups;
3. Create and strengthen small agribusinesses;
Examples of project activities: agriculture demonstrations and
training, greenhouses, education on high quality food products,
irrigation systems improvements;
Geographic focus: Departments of Escuintla, Suchitepequez, Solola, and
Quiché.
Program: Uganda - USAID Title II Development Assistance;
Project start-end dates: August 2008-July 2013;
Partner: Mercy Corps;
Project value in millions: $21.7;
Project goals and objectives:
1. Improved food production, consumption, and sales among smallholder
farming households;
2. Improved health and nutrition for pregnant/lactating women and
children under five;
3. Sustainable safe water access and improved water, sanitation, and
hygiene practices;
Examples of project activities: expand production and sales of field
crops, education on sound agricultural practices, sanitation
facilities, child and mother nutrition activities;
Geographic focus: Acholi Sub-Region (Kitgum and Pader districts).
Program: Uganda - USAID Title II Development Assistance;
Project start-end dates: October 2006-August 2012;
Partner: ACDI/VOCA;
Project value in millions: $76.2;
Project goals and objectives:
1. Smallholder Agriculture: Reduced food insecurity and increased
nutrition status for 170,600 farmers;
2. Reduced food insecurity and improved nutrition for 53,100
vulnerable people;
Examples of project activities: agricultural training for local
nongovernmental organizations, training in nutrition and hygiene to
rural households, improved seeds, technical assistance to agro
producers, rehabilitation of rural roads, training on financial
services;
Geographic focus: Lango (Apac, Lira), Acholi (Gulu, Kitgum,
Pader),Teso (Amuria, Kaberamaido, Katakwi, Kumi, Pallisa, Soroti).
Program: Uganda - USDA LRP;
Project start-end dates: December 2010-September 2011;
Partner: World Vision, Inc;
Project value in millions: $4.0;
Project goals and objectives:
1. Reduce food insecurity and vulnerability of extremely vulnerable
individuals in Kitgum and Pader Districts;
2. Reduce food insecurity and vulnerability of moderately food
insecure individuals in those districts;
3. Strengthen local market linkages and increase communities' access
to local markets;
Examples of project activities: food for work, rehabilitate rural
roads, training on agronomic practices, food rations, home gardens;
Geographic focus: Acholi Sub-Region (Kitgum and Pader districts).
Program: Uganda - USDA Food for Progress;
Project start-end dates: September 2011-September 2014;
Partner: National Cooperative Business Association;
Project value in millions: $9.9;
Project goals and objectives:
1. Improve maize and bean production;
2. Improve maize and bean marketing;
3.Improve manufacturing links and tools for conservation farming;
Examples of project activities: agricultural training for ministry
officials, agro-business training, grants for tool manufacturers;
Geographic focus: Regions of Lango, Pallisa, Elgon, Western, and
Mubende.
Program: Uganda - USDA Food for Progress;
Project start-end dates: September 2011-September 2014;
Partner: Mercy Corps;
Project value in millions: $9.5;
Project goals and objectives:
1. Enhance smallholder farmer production and profitability;
2. Improve agri-business and trade performance in key inputs and
output markets;
3. Expand access to rural financial services;
4. Improve financial institutions to provide credit services to both
smallholder fanners and agri-businesses;
Examples of project activities: agricultural training for farmers in
business, training for local government, rehabilitation of rural
roads, financial technical assistance, training on savings and loans;
Geographic focus: Acholi Sub region (Lamwo district).
Source: USAID and USDA documents.
Notes: Totals are rounded to one decimal point. Total value of the
agreement includes U.S. value of the commodity, inland transportation,
freight charges, storage, handing, and monetization if any. The amount
of funding available for development programs depends on the purchase
price of the commodity in the country in a given time. For example, in
2011, 52.1 percent of the USAID Title II Development Assistance was
monetized.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Related GAO Reports:
International Food Assistance: Improved Targeting Would Help Enable
USAID to Reach Vulnerable Groups. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-862]. Washington, D.C.: September
24, 2012.
International Food Assistance: World Food Program Stronger Control
Needed in High Risk Areas. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-790]. Washington, D.C.: September
13, 2012.
International Assistance: Funding Development Projects through the
Purchase, Shipment, and Sale of U.S. Commodities is Inefficient and
Can Cause Adverse Market Impact. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-636]. Washington, D.C.: June 23,
2011.
International Food Assistance: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-977SP]. Washington,
D.C.: September 30, 2009.
International Food Assistance: USAID Is Taking Actions to Improve
Monitoring and Evaluation of Nonemergency Food Aid, but Weaknesses in
Planning Could Impede Efforts. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-980]. Washington, D.C.: September
28, 2009.
International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Provides
Opportunities to Enhance U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain
Its Implementation. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-757T]. Washington, D.C.: June 4,
2009.
International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Can
Enhance the Efficiency of U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain
Its Implementation. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-570]. Washington, D.C.: May 29,
2009.
International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments
and Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by
2015. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680]. Washington,
D.C.: May 29, 2008.
Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Limit the Efficiency and
Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-905T]. Washington, D.C.: May 24,
2007.
Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Impede the Efficiency and
Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-560]. Washington, D.C.: April 13,
2007.
Foreign Assistance: U.S. Agencies Face Challenges to Improving the
Efficiency and Effectiveness of Food Aid. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-616T]. Washington, D.C.: March 21,
2007.
Food Aid: Experience of U.S. Programs Suggest Opportunities for
Improvement. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-801T].
Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2002.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Though international food assistance includes both emergency and
nonemergency food aid programs, this report focuses only on
nonemergency food aid programs.
[2] USAID previously referred to these development programs as
nonemergency programs. Development programs typically include a range
of objectives, such as agricultural development, health and nutrition,
or community development. Emergency programs may have some of these
same objectives, but they are generally focused on alleviating hunger
and malnutrition in countries affected by disaster. In this report,
our focus includes only Title II development in-kind food assistance
programs authorized by Title II of the Food for Peace Act, as amended,
7 U.S.C. § 1721 et seq.
[3] GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host
Governments and Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-
Saharan Africa by 2015, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680] (Washington, D.C.: May 29,
2008).
[4] Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more
than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad
area of national interest. Program overlap occurs when programs have
similar goals, similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or
similar target recipients. Fragmentation can lead to overlapping
programs and can create the potential for inefficiencies such as
duplication, which occurs when two or more agencies or programs are
engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the
same beneficiaries. See GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to
Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and
Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-342SP]
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).
[5] U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Agency for International
Development, U.S. International Food Assistance Report 2011
(Washington, D.C.: 2012).
[6] Monetization is the sale of U.S. food aid commodities in
developing countries to obtain local currency for use in U.S.
development assistance programs. For further information on
monetization, see GAO, International Food Assistance: Funding
Development Projects through the Purchase, Shipment, and Sale of U.S
Commodities Is Inefficient and Can Cause Adverse Market Impacts,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-636] (Washington D.C.,
June 23, 2011).
[7] For some programs, funding and direct feeding at schools are also
provided to implement education programs. Development programs also
include food-for-work activities in which beneficiaries receive food
commodities in exchange for their work supporting development projects.
[8] The Farm Bill authorizes the purchase of U.S. commodities for
nonemergency food aid programs. Congress has periodically passed farm
bills in part to provide domestic and international food assistance,
promote economic development in rural areas, and help advance
alternatives to petroleum fuel, among other things.
[9] Section 3001 of Pub. L. No. 110-246, the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008, changed the title of the underlying legislation
from the Agricultural Trade Development Assistance Act of 1954, also
known as P.L. No. 480, to the Food for Peace Act. Title II of the Food
for Peace Act is codified at 7 U.S.C. 1721 et seq. Our review included
only Title II development in-kind food assistance programs.
[10] Pub. L. No. 99-198, § 1110, 7 U.S.C. 1736o.
[11] Pub. L. No. 107-171, § 3107, 7 U.S.C. 1736o-1.
[12] Pub. L. No. 110-246, § 3206, 7 U.S.C. 1726c.
[End of section]
GAO’s Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations,
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy,
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports,
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select
“E-mail Updates.”
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
Connect with GAO:
Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm];
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov;
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470.
Congressional Relations:
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548.
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548.
[End of document]